Change My View (CMV):

For people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong or want help changing their view.

Submission Rules

(A)Try to explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+charactersrequired). [More]

(B)You must personally hold the view and be open to it changing. A post cannot be neutral, on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or "soapboxing". Posts by throwaway accounts must be approved through modmail. [More]

(C)Submission titles must adequately sum up your view and include "CMV:" at the beginning. Posts with misleading/overly-simplistic titles may be removed. [More]

(D)Meta posts are to be submitted to /r/ideasforcmv. Feasible suggestions that gain traction there may be implemented or posted to CMV for further discussion by the mods. [More]

(E)Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to do sowithin3 hours after posting. If you haven't replied during this time, your post will be removed. [More]

Comment Rules

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [More]

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid. 'They started it' is not an excuse. You should report it, not respond to it. [More]

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us. [More]

If you have acknowledged/hinted that your view has changed in some way, please award a delta. You must also include an explanation of this change along with the delta. [More]

No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes", for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [More]

/u/DeltaBot will deal with scores, wiki pages and leaderboards, more info on which can be found here.

Please message the mods if you suspect misuse/abuse of the delta.

Wiki of CMV

We have a fairly extensive wiki that stores lots of useful information, such as full explanations of our rules and guidelines, archives (e.g. popular topics), and some general information about the subreddit.

I understand the affirmative action defense of admitting a student into a college because they are a minority: their families were forced to endure hundreds of years of oppression and slavery. The affects of this obviously are still in place today. However, this is the cause of the poverty, but it is not a reason to give out the scholarship. A minority that grew up in a wealthy neighborhood and attended a upper class school should not be given preference over another student in the same situation as him, minus skin color.

Besides giving those minority students an unfair advantage, it also puts Caucasian or Asian-american students that are living in poverty an even bigger disadvantage. They grew up with all the problems like going to school in a bad area or having to help support their own family through work. So why should the privileged minority student be given preference over them? It's not the kid's fault they are not a minority.

And yes, being white in society comes with many advantages. You can walk down the street without coming under suspicion, you are generally hired more easily, etc. But I feel like the racist systems still in place in society will affect your education to that extent. Being poor is still extremely correlated with being a minority. This would not take the scholarships and admissions away from the minorities that were born into a bad situation, but I think it would help the kids that were born into the same situation with a different ethnicity.

CMV

Edit: So, I guess after all of this, more research, and a little thinking, my view has changed, but not reversed. Affirmative action programs should be for any group of people that were born into a bad situation. So, to be honest I believe that affirmative action should somehow encompass the student's race (because racism is clearly still alive and well), socioeconomic status, and even gender. At most schools now gender is not a problem, so that is already in place. Since all of these factors of a student give them advantages and disadvantages, AA should just level the playing field for each of them.

That and going to college and seeing how many god-damned white people there were kind of put the kibosh on the whole "affirmative action is racist" thing for me.

That observation means nothing on its own. If you live in a 98% white area (looking at you, Vermont), then if there were no racial disparity then 98% of the College kids should be white. Lots of Southern colleges are nearly 100% black; that does no more to prove that affirmative action is racist than your observation disproves.

Alright; replace "lots of" with "at least one" and fix the conjugation; the argument remains unblemished. The fact that one school has lots of white people means nothing, especially in a predominantly white area.

The thing is, it's not "fighting racism with more racism", because those two forms of "racism" are inherently unequal forces. I assume you take the definition of racism to be any prejudice against any racial group (I personally disagree with that definition, but we'll just go with it for now). The racism that is being fought is caused by hundreds of years of oppression by white people. The "racism" that is being used to fight it is an attempt to level the playing field and change patterns that have been ingrained in our society for too long.

There is a difference between having an offensive opinion and expressing an opinion offensively. We don't remove people for having an offensive opinion, oftentimes they're trying to change that opinion, we remove people for being uncivil.

We do not care what your opinion is, we care that you are not insulting or hostile to others when expressing it. The whole purpose of this subreddit is being able to have discussions on these topics with the intention of changing minds.

It's the difference between "I think black people are poor because they're bad at holding a steady job, CMV" and "I think niggers are poor because they're fucking retarded, CMV"

You failed to provide a welcoming environment for all participants of a debate. Its an unsubstantiated & derogatory claim.

It is up to you, the users, to show that these claims are unsubstantiated. We're not going to ban people from making CMVs that open with a racist view, why would we? We'd be closing off the ability for people who are racist but genuinely interested in changing their mind to make posts that could very well help them see the other side of an argument. As long as they're being civil, not calling other users stupid, we're not going to remove their posts.

You think black people or females are likely to enter into debates where this language is casually accepted?

Yes. It happens often. /u/Amarkov does this all the time because they're able to separate someone's views from a personal attack on them.

Where, exactly, did you learn to debate?

This isn't a formal debate subreddit.

Go fuck yourself

I don't really see why you are trying so hard to get me to ban you. I've done nothing but respond to you with civility in an attempt to explain why we hold the views we do. You're clearly not a troll, and you're not stupid. I can understand not agreeing with our rules, but is the hostility really necessary?

I guess I am mostly talking about affirmative action, not scholarships. What I am trying to say is that admissions should not be need blind. Instead universities should give a slight advantage to a poor student that is academically the same as the rich student. The poor student started out in a worse situation in life anyways and probably had to overcome a lot.

Maybe there should be quotas that public universities should try to meet based on the percentages of each class. For example (and this is extremely simplified): Say Texas has 20% upper class, 40% middle class, and 40% lower class in terms of socioeconomic status. Why shouldn't the university try to roughly match these numbers in admissions and instead make it race blind?

So, what your telling me is that my PhD, despite condemning me years of post docing for beans followed likely by unemployment, is going to hurt my kids chances of getting into good schools? It just gets worse and worse.

Obviously it depends on the school, but having given campus tours for a few years and as a result worked somewhat closely with the office of admissions, I would say probably not at most schools. There is a big distinction between first generation college students and people whose parents have degrees.

When I was giving a tour, I could tell within few minutes of talking to someone whether or not their parents went to college or not. It changes the questions you ask, what schools you apply to, the expectations your parents have for you, essentially your entire perspective on college. When your parents have college degrees it means they probably work in jobs that require a degree and with other people who have them which gives them a bunch of experience first generation students have. They went through the admissions process themselves, so they have an experience to compare things to as they guide you through applying to schools yourself.

The memes you are about to see posted in the next month or two about the kid who asks when the professor is going to pass out the textbooks because he doesn't realize you have to buy them is a first generation college student. It's little bits of what seem like obvious knowledge to people whose parents did go to college that add up to make a huge difference.

I don't know any numbers off the top of my head, but you can quantitatively measure many differences in first year grades, drop out rates, etc between first generation students and kids whose parents have degrees. Especially in the admissions and enrollment process, many schools make an effort to provide more resources, contact and information to first generation students.

I never have heard anyone make a big deal about the differences between students whose parents have advanced degrees vs those who don't. There might be differences, but they're much more subtle and don't materialize themselves in ways that make a big difference. Having a parent who works in college admissions or academia probably makes a bigger difference than a parent with a PhD who works in the private sector.

Perhaps, some schools do treat children whose parents have advanced degrees of some kind differently, but in that case it was your masters not your PhD that made the difference.

Well, jokes on them: I'm not going to spend money on my kids education through a university anyway. I'm fully convinced that besides medicine and chemical engineering, there's not much you can do in University which will be highly likely to lead to a good job anymore. I think my students suspect as much too.

I think what OP is asking, though, is "why is race considered at all?" Because it definitely is. And I happen to agree with OP that universities would achieve a more diverse population by valuing socioeconomic diversity instead of racial diversity.

Not really - you can be the highest achiever at a low-achieving school & its very hard to take that 4.2 as seriously as someone from an "established" high school. Not even counting extra-circulars & the fact failing schools wont really help you pass the Standardized tests very well.

Lots of admissions people really do mean well, but they arn't in a position to go back in time or anything.

Its a company, of sorts. They let in whomever can pay. If they need to throttle less educated people who will lower their scores and graduation rates, they will. Affirmative action is there because they could easily become not minority friendly based solely on merit, if they so chose. Then the gap between the rich and the poor would be that much larger.

Hi. I work in financial aid. I am not certified, but I do deal with this every day. Native Americans get the most in retribution style aid. All you need to have is proof of your heritage. Blacks get the next best deal in terms of retribution style aid (because slavery). Mexicans get the third most because of their crossover into the Native American community (in fact most of them are Spanish/Native American in ancestry).

So no Race plays a huge factor. People who are White or of European descent get zero opportunity for historical retribution based funding. Now pile on top of that all the scholarships, federal aid, grants, and merit loans and grants. That pile of money is fought for by all races and backgrounds.

The idea that all people receive the same amount of opportunity for aid is a complete and total joke.

This is all based on my personal experience with on campus financial aid officers. This is not based on some list of numbers conjured up by some numbers firm in Latvia. This is real world day to day observation.

Last but not least I can't disclose any hard numbers as I am under a confidentiality agreement.

Edit: Grammar and clarity.

Edit: For those who want to hate fine go a head. That does not change my personal experience with this type of stuff. I see kids and veterans day in and day out with their financial woes.

The funds are not directly called retribution funds. However if you trace them back you can find that they do have roots in cases that were brought based on retribution. FAFSA in not the only form of government aid. Native Americans for example, with proof from their tribe, can get full rides to college provided that they can get into a university or college.

You'd be better off trying to gain a better understanding of African Americans (try not using "blacks", black is fine, blacks is harsh) long struggle with education and their inability to attain one. It's not because of something that happened 150 years ago, it is based around the continued institutional policies practiced today. Its based around property values and the speculators who continue to use race as a determining factor of a neighborhoods fiscal worth. Its the fact that these same property values influence the local public school funding. It is this and a whole lot more like it that has nothing to do with slavery. If in all your experience the best way you can theorize is "blacks get most because slavery" then perhaps its time to go back to school.

You seemingly don't have much experience in states that have racism. There is also nothing to be said for being politically correct. It just shows that you want special attention because you don't like the term. I have called blacks every politically correct term in the book. Some respond well. Others say "fuck that" and say just say what you are comfortable with. People who are politically correct are just over sensitive.

I am from Missouri, specifically St. Louis. I have plenty of first hand knowledge of racism and how it plays a role in our biggest of institutions; so much so that I know that slavery is not typically a topic of conversation that takes place in poor, segregated communities striving for a better shot. There are a multitude of evils that currently exist that harm black populations much, much more than the fact they were enslaved 150 years ago, which is why I find your synopsis offensive.

As for your word choice, say what you will - but its not just an empty gesture to be politically correct to refrain from what was once used as derogatory language.

St. Louis may have a "claim to fame" as far as racism. My mom actually lived there at the same time MLK was doing his thing. Her father was friends with him, my old pastor was also friends with MLK. So I think I know a bit about the St. Louis climate as far as past and present. Trust me it does not compare to living in Dallas, Texas or Savannah, Georgia. So let's try again.

St. Louis is tame compared to the south. MLK actually had a very strong impact there. In Texas and Georgia the climate is still vastly racist. The KKK, Neo Natzis, and White Supremeists are things I see on a regular basis. Hate for coloreds is still alive and well. The demand for equality is still there. I said what I did not because i have any kind of hate, but because it still rings true today.

You honestly think "black" is extremely offensive? I find "African American" extremely offensive as I am a white person from South Africa who recently moved to the U.S. Guess what? My Polish-American friend, German-American friend can all say where they came from and their new home. I say African-American? I'm racist. Oversensitivity is a real issue, and I come from a country with an arguably worse racial history than the U.S on that regard.

No I am proving my worth. Not giving up in metaphors. You might want to check your stats on crime and population for Dallas, Savannah, and St. Louis. I have second hand connections to a great man. What do you have.

Caucasian students
receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding,
even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population. Caucasian students are
40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students.

Yeah, what that paper conveniently forgets to mention is that the average grant for a minority student is(majority of times) higher than for a white student. Take the high GPA students, for example: a white student receives an average of $2.500, while a minority student receives $3.228. That's a big difference if you ask me(almost 700$). But meh, that's not so convenient when you can't race-bait with it, is it?

Also, that paper belongs in the dumpster. There's no way anybody would ever publish a paper where figures and tables are not properly captioned, it wouldn't get accepted anywhere, and kind of makes me want to question its accuracy.

I think it's actually more like the case that the amount of the award is socio-economic based, and there is higher correlation with poverty and minorities compared to whites. Thus, when you average it all out, and you give 10 need based scholarships to 10 minorities it's more likely that they will need more (and thus be awarded more).

Are you implying that the only reasons that minorities get more is that someone is being 'racist' against whites?

I think we misunderstand each other. I wasn't implying people are racist against whites, of course, I was just trying to show how it could have been used as race bait had it been the other way around( ZOMG whitez get more ZOMG racizm!!11!). I sincerely believe that, while some degree of racism exists here and there in the US education system(probably especially in the South), that problem is fairly minor and doesn't account for the differences that paper illustrates.

I'm seeing a lot of regional (i.e. areas that are still racist for the most part), a lot of uncited or uncredited addendums, via asterisk, that don't point to a source. There are also minimal government sources cited. Along with a number of defunct sites that have been defunct for 6 or 7 years at this point. How is this credible aside from the fact that Mark Kantrowitz published this paper?

Strategic Enrolment is a major factor to consider for all universities/colleges. In order to guarantee future viability, they need to attract growing populations in universities: black/hispanic students, first-generation students (people whose parents did not attend a post-secondary institution) and similar demographics. If the new students don't feel that the school represents them, they won't want to go.

It may not be ethically the best thing to do, but as a business strategy it makes sense.

As for scholarships, most of them are not the universities money, but donated to them by alumni. Many of these scholarships are earmarked for certain demographics that the alumni fall into (be it program-specific, or involvement in athletics, student unions, etc.)

The black population that is attending university is growing, not the overall black population.

From a business point of view, colleges want to attract the people with money, typically whites and asians. This supposed business argument you are making does not strike me as persuasive.

And for a private university, yes. Public universities, depending on where you are, can get over half of a student's tuition paid for by the government. In those circumstances, with financial aid and student loans taking the other half, it makes sense to attract any student who can come as opposed to only students with money.

Additionally, studies show that alumni who had received scholarships are no less likely to donate money to their universities than those who did not. If they feel that going to university helped them out, they will donate later in life just as often as someone with no financial need would.

The black population that is attending university is growing, not the overall black population.

This strikes me as circular. More black students are attending universities therefore universities must accept more black students. Consider that maybe proportionally more black students are attending BECAUSE of these very programs; does their existence somehow prove their own viability? I don't think so.

A fact that you may not be considering are that students who receive access to universities through these programs have a much higher rate of failing out than others. Do you think failing students will increase a university's financial viability? No. They reduce the university's ranking, they tend not to contribute money later, and they do not pay for the full four years.

I understand the affirmative action defense of admitting a student into a college because they are a minority

In addition to the reasons you stated, most universities believe that all students benefit from having a ethnically and culturally diverse student body that can bring multiple views to a topic of discussion. They believe that society will benefit by having equal representation of all races in high profile professions. The country is potentially losing out on talented doctors and scientists if young black children see that as an unrealistic goal because all the doctors they ever see are white (not that this is necessarily the case anymore). So awarding scholarships to underrepresented minorities isn't doesn't only benefit the student receiving the award.

Yes, a black student might have been adopted by a white family in some white town and never met another black person in their lives and have no idea about black culture, etc. But it would likely cost more money to do that thorough of a background check on everyone than it would to just waste that money on the few black students who don't bring a different perspective to the school.

If you don't believe that the university isn't allowed to act in its own self interest and should rely solely on academic merit, then you must have a huge issue with football players getting acceptances and scholarships despite subpar grades.

but I think it would help the kids that were born into the same situation with a different ethnicity.

Poor white people and poor black people, even with the same income, tend to be in very different situations due to the de facto segregation that still exists in the U.S.

A poor white person often still lives in a middle class area with decent schools, reasonably maintained public facilities, and minimal crime. A poor black person often lives in a lower class area with underfunded schools, poorly maintained public facilities, and excessive crime. It tends to be much easier for a poor white person to escape their situation than a poor black person.

But it would likely cost more money to do that thorough of a background check on everyone than it would to just waste that money on the few black students who don't bring a different perspective to the school.

The school doesn't have to perform a background check, they would just require students to submit their parents'/guardian's tax information. Every school requires that in the first place if the student wants to receive financial aid.

A poor white person often still lives in a middle class area with decent schools, reasonably maintained public facilities, and minimal crime. A poor black person often lives in a lower class area with underfunded schools, poorly maintained public facilities, and excessive crime.

Source? I think there are plenty of poor white people living in trailers in the fly over states surrounded by exploding meth labs who might disagree with this.

Here's a source talking about neighborhood income disparity in metropolitan areas.

Certainly there are poor white (and poor black) people living in trailers in rural America, but would they be enough to make up for the disparity seen in urban areas? Considering that the rural population in the U.S. is at an all-time low of 16%, I think probably not. But I'll try to find a better source for you.

This is another disincentive to earn taxable money. People already choose jobs with healthcare over jobs for more money, jobs that involve under the table money, off the books investments and grey market jobs to avoid taxes. Add in that it will help your kids education and its just another reason to pick ways of making money that are off the books.

Given that you agree being non-white is a social disadvantage when it comes to college opportunity, why "instead" and not "also?" It's also worth noting that scholarships also target the economically disadvantaged.

Pointing out that something else is worse is not an argument. Also I'm not even sure if I believe you. That might be true in schools like harvard and yale where legacy matters a lot but it seems less plausible for many other schools.

First, universities don't give raced based scholarships, that's private scholarships. Second, affirmative action for black people is because being black is a disadvantage in this society separate from being poor.

This isn't a direct answer to your question, but it's pretty darned close. This article is a social experiment comparing job application callbacks for fictitious individuals with more or less stereotypically white or black names and backgrounds. It's stunning, the callback rate wasn't affected just by their name, but also the address posted (white/black, rich/poor area of town), among others. And the difference is startling, up to 50% in some cases. That's huge.

Let me be clear: I certainly don't think being black is inherently disadvantageous, but I do think based upon reason and evidence, that black people are socially disadvantaged in the circumstance of living in modern America. Significantly so.

Can you give me a set of black names that are associated with wealth - being upper-class or rich?

I didn't think so.

The funny thing is that your post gave more credence to the opposite viewpoint.

The black names are associated with the poorer folks, while the white names are "mainstream".

You are correct!

Black people are socially disadvantaged compared to 'white' folks, and this was a great example of it. Wealth differences aren't a separate issue, they're a part of it, to the point where names associated with being black are automatically assumed to be poor or lower-class.

Many people also assume negative things about people named Cleetus or Bubba, Abdul or Mohammed, Juan or Pedro, but this doesn't negate the social disadvantage experienced by black people. They might both be disadvantaged. This still leaves black folks disadvantaged, it just means they're not the only ones, which was never a claim proposed.

They don't have to be associated with "upper class", just mainstream. They could have just drawn from a list of the most common nanes for each race.

Edit response: The claim was that they compared white names and black names. They did not do this- the compared poor black names with average white names. The effects could then result from either racial prejudice or income prejudice, or some combination of the two. The study made no effort to control for socioeconomic status, so you can't claim a race effect with certainty.

If you read page 8-9 of the study, the names were chosen for how strongly people identified them with being typical "white" or "black" names, as well as their actual frequency of occurrence in white and black populations. The fact that you think of the strongly-black-identified names as "poor" isn't an argument against the use of those names but further evidence of race-based prejudice.

The fact that they're not the most common black names does not in any way contradict the validity of their use. If the most common names for black people weren't strongly identified as "black names," they'd be useless for the purposes of the study.

Do you not associate the name "Jamal" with poorer black individuals? Is my association of "Bubba" or "Missy" with poorer white individuals evidence of anti-white prejudice?

Only if "bubba" and "missy" were strongly identified as "white" names, which they apparently weren't, since they weren't used in the study. (edit: And personally, the only associations I have with "Bubba" or "Missy" are the character Bubba from Forrest Gump and Missy Elliott)

You only have to be 1/8 of a minority race to be considered that race for affirmative action. Do you really think someone who is 1/8 Hispanic or African American is at a disadvantage in life and deserves a significantly better chance at admission to a top university?

I'd say 50%. Sure that percentage can be drawn somewhere else, but I feel that 1/8 is way too small of a fraction. I know a few people who are 1/8 hispanic or black, and they are indistinguishable from someone who is 100% white. I even know some people who are 1/4 mixed race and show absolutely no physical traits of it.

I think that the logic behind many of the affirmative action rules/laws is that figuring out socioeconomic status cutoffs, family education history guidelines, and so on is actually pretty tough and comes across as arbitrary.

There's one simple factor that actually correlates pretty well with poor socioeconomic status, lack of family education, incarceration rates, etc., and that's race. It's not a pretty truth, but sadly, it's really not a bad indicator of these things on a large scale (though obviously it falls apart when you start taking personal anecdotes).

So if you look white, but your grandfather was unable to go to college because he didn't look white, and therefore your parents were less likely to have gone before, and overall your family is poorer than it otherwise might have been, it's not necessarily a bad thing that you get extra assistance for your heritage in spite of your appearance. At 1/8th it's quite possible you won't look white anyway, especially if some of those 7/8ths is non-white as well.

Pretty much anyone who is frequently identified based on their appearance as non-white will experience effects of race-based prejudice, and many people who are "1/8 black" will probably still be frequently identified as non-white based on their appearance, so it seems like a fine figure to me.

Oh I know there's been historic discrimination, but we have laws against that now. What little discrimination is still present we should still try to remove, but how is positive discrimination helping that?

Second, affirmative action for black people is because being black is a disadvantage in this society separate from being poor.

Wait a minute. These Universities are using race as a 'predictor' for socioeconomic status for deciding entry. This is a huge mistake for many reasons, including the fact that:

1) Race is a horrifically poor metric, cannot be proven, is not easily divided into convenient categories, exists as a mutidimentional spectrum as a function of maybe a dozen variables, and is becoming even messier all the time.

2) Race, even if you accept the ridiculously oversimplified concept, does not perfectly correlate to socioeconomic status.

3) Blending people of different races does not guarantee diversity, and to claim otherwise is actually quite a racist statement in of itself.

3) Blending people of different races does not guarantee diversity, and to claim otherwise is actually quite a racist statement in of itself.

Do you agree that blending people of different races does guarantee one type of diversity (racial diversity)?

I think universities should strive for a student population that is diverse in many possible ways. Race is one such way. Parent socioeconomic status is another, and many others exist as well (religion, nationality, state of origin, political beliefs, level of parental education, and rural or urban geographic origin, to name a few). I think it's shortsighted of you to focus solely on socioeconomic status.

Do you agree that blending people of different races does guarantee one type of diversity (racial diversity)?

a) I don't consider race to be a metric which is reliably measurable, which I can defend as someone who works in genetics.

b) I see nothing beneficial at all in diversity of a single metric for the sake of the diversity of said metric. Unless there is some other benefit to this diversity, which I don't see.

I think universities should strive for a student population that is diverse in many possible ways. Race is one such way.

If there is no additional benefit to diversity of race (ie. if race does not predict other forms of diversity) then there is no value in it. To say that race predicts other forms of diversity would be seen by many to be a racist statement, in of itself.

We really need to start dissociating people form their 'race'. To do as you suggest further ties people to it.

b) I see nothing beneficial at all in diversity of a single metric for the sake of the diversity of said metric. Unless there is some other benefit to this diversity, which I don't see.

Colleges apparently (and I personally) believe that there is an inherent benefit to racial diversity, irrespective of other factors. That's the basis for deciding that affirmative action to promote diversity based on race is a good idea. What kind of evidence would convince you that this is the case, or do you have some evidence that you think suggests that it is not the case?

If there is no additional benefit to diversity of race (ie. if race does not predict other forms of diversity) then there is no value in it. To say that race predicts other forms of diversity would be seen by many to be a racist statement, in of itself.

Since in the USA, race is correlated with income, wealth, and parental education level, race does actually predict other forms of diversity. This isn't a racist statement, it's a statement about modern effects of our nation's long history of racist policies.

What kind of evidence would convince you that this is the case, or do you have some evidence that you think suggests that it is not the case?

Yes. To prove that there is benefit to having diverse representation of a metric, one must first validate whether said metric even exists. In the case of race, I can make a very compelling argument the metric itself is entity fabricated, cannot be reliably measured, and simply represents a damaging and erroneous oversimplification of biology. I feel that I can convince you of this fact if you are not already. Assuming you are convinced, how then can a diverse representation of a failed metric benefit anyone?

Since in the USA, race is correlated with income, wealth, and parental education level

The lesson being that we are using a terribly problematic metric to predict other metrics which can be measured directly. That's silly. Why then not abandon the poor metric in favor of the others. If they correlate as you claim, then this should also guarantee that we get the diversity that we are after.

Colleges apparently (and I personally) believe

Not all colleges. There are some notable exceptions which agree with me. Caltech and the U of C system being the most obvious examples. There was also a great article on this topic in the NYTimes recently which seemed to suggest that my position is being adopted more and more widely.

Yes. To prove that there is benefit to having diverse representation of a metric, one must first validate whether said metric even exists. In the case of race, I can make a very compelling argument the metric itself is entity fabricated, cannot be reliably measured, and simply represents a damaging and erroneous oversimplification of biology. I feel that I can convince you of this fact if you are not already. Assuming you are convinced, how then can a diverse representation of a failed metric benefit anyone?

You're right that race is an extremely genetically fuzzy concept. However, I don't believe that race must necessarily be a valid genetic concept to be useful as a measure of diversity, and it's definitely a "real" concept as far as its cultural impact. For example, there's no discernible genetic difference between child A born and raised in Manhattan and child B born and raised in Topeka either, but I think the two children's geographical origin is a very useful consideration for a college when looking at diversity. I think it's reductive to try to discount race on a genetic basis the way that you've been trying to when its cultural effects are so far-reaching.

The lesson being that we are using a terribly problematic metric to predict other metrics which can be measured directly. That's silly. Why then not abandon the poor metric in favor of the others. If they correlate as you claim, then this should also guarantee that we get the diversity that we are after.

Here's what you said:

If there is no additional benefit to diversity of race (ie. if race does not predict other forms of diversity) then there is no value in it. To say that race predicts other forms of diversity would be seen by many to be a racist statement, in of itself.

To say that race does not predict other forms of diversity is factually incorrect. I'd be happy to drop this though. Do you retract this statement?

Not all colleges. There are some notable exceptions which agree with me. Caltech and the U of C system being the most obvious examples. There was also a great article on this topic in the NYTimes recently which seemed to suggest that my position is being adopted more and more widely.

Whether there are some colleges that disagree with me is irrelevant to my argument, since obviously what I said applies only to ones that agree with me.

It doesn't stop at genetics. It's not a valid anything concept. You can prove that a person was born in a particular place, making it a valid metric. Race is unprovable and unverifiable for the reasons that I already described. How can we base which privileges we dole out from our institutions on a metric which is based upon fantasy? I demand a more rigorous method.

Do you retract this statement?

The statements I made are not mutually exclusive. One was a statement of fact and the other was a conditional statement meant to lead your reasoning. Basically, it's not X, but even if it is X...

since obviously what I said applies only to ones that agree with me.

You claimed an argument from authority based upon the opinions of colleges. I am pointing out that the argument is fallacious because the authority also agrees with me.

It doesn't stop at genetics. It's not a valid anything concept. You can prove that a person was born in a particular place, making it a valid metric. Race is unprovable and unverifiable for the reasons that I already described. How can we base which privileges we dole out from our institutions on a metric which is based upon fantasy? I demand a more rigorous method.

Race is not "based on fantasy," it's based on a large set of of correlations between physical features, accent and dialect, modes of dress, and other cultural identifiers and the ways they affect how we are perceived by other people. Is physical attractiveness "unprovable and unverifiable" and "based on fantasy?" It's exactly as measurable in exactly the same way as race is.

You claimed an argument from authority based upon the opinions of colleges. I am pointing out that the argument is fallacious because the authority also agrees with me.

So colleges are split. That's not an argument that the colleges that agree with you are right and the ones that agree with me are wrong. I see no reason to require that colleges either do or do not consider race, I think they should be allowed to if they want to, and colleges being split on their views is consistent with my view.

Fantastical may be a bit strong, but I feel that I have born the burden of proof demonstrating that it makes for an incredibly problematic metric. An argument made all the stronger by:

Is physical attractiveness "unprovable and unverifiable" and "based on fantasy?" It's exactly as measurable in exactly the same way as race is.

Thank you. This is an excellent analogy which we can use to further expose why race should not be used as a metric for university entrance. Would we use physical attractiveness to decide university entrance? Of course not because it's nebulous, subjective, impossible to measure. Nobody would consider using physical attractiveness for these reasons. Yet, these are the exact same reasons why we should not use race.

I see no reason to require that colleges either do or do not consider race

Continuing with an argument from authority, the courts don't agree with you on this point, in the US at least. Lot's going on with this topic right now.

1) First and formost, I think most financial aid is need-based. In other words, at least for scholarships/grants/loans/etc, most of the aid is awarded on a socio-economic level

2) Related to #1, It is true there are many more scholarships exists that qualify for minorities/only. HOWEVER, most of these scholarships are private or psuedo private and are not institutionalized by the government.

3) As for admission, affirmative action is still necessary (provided you think know that race has nothing to do with intelligence, and therefore one should expect to find an equal proportion of students of a given race in a student population as the general population). If you don't agree with stuff in the parenthesis, then you are probably just racist and your view likely won't change.

Basically what I am saying is that poor students should be given advantage rich students.

They are, all the time, especially when it comes down to federal financial aid. Have you filled out a FAFSA application recently? They grill the living shit out of you about taxes/income/holding etc, but only ask about race once.

You did absolutely nothing to disprove affirmative action. I am not racist.

I'm not disproving it. I'm pointing out that, IF you believe/understand that intelligence and race are NOT correlated then you should also expect that student body's reflect the general population, which they do not. Therefore, there still exists valid reason to admit students based on race, (rather than socio-economics alone).

That's it. Regardless of race.

I guess, why it sounds like you don't fully understand how these things work. Your CMV makes it sound like you think there is no such thing as a socio-economic based scholarship. When MOST are based on socio-economic based rather than race based (although some are).

tl;dr: Most scholarships/aid are already socio-economic based and since there still exists significant inequality between study body and general population (by race), race based admissions are still necessary to 'correct' for this (provided you understand/think it needs a correction).

Yes, all aid is based on socioeconomic status. But I would say that most scholarships are based on merit alone, not race or socioeconomic status. Admissions, though, I am still not convinced. I think if colleges had quotas based on levels of income then the level of diversity in the college would be roughly equal to the population's diversity. However, in this scenario, people from all economic classes would also be represented.

I think if colleges had quotas based on levels of income then the level of diversity in the college would be roughly equal to the population's diversity.

I think this is a very interesting tactic and on many levels I agree with you. I think you could have been more clear in your argument. When stated like this I think it becomes more clear what you are actually advocating. If I read correctly, I think you view could be reworded to be more general.

I think changing admissions quotas/criteria to purely socio-economic considerations would do more to achieve equality - especially racial equality - than the current model of using race.

Why?

Socio-economics hurdles are harder to overcome than racial ones. (In other words, well-to-do minorities have it easier than very poor white people).

It evens the playing field for well-to-do people of different races.

Since race and socio-economics are so highly correlated, it would more quickly level the playing field then raced based considerations. The reason is that you are giving the admission spot to the poor person, who is more likely to be a minority, rather than the rich minority. Everyone once in awhile, a poor-white person may get a spot ahead of the rich minority, BUT on average you will be giving more spots to poor minorities this way, which in the long run will actually do more to 'correct' the same problems that affirmative action is trying to fix.

So, I guess after all of this, more research, and a little thinking, my view has changed, but not reversed. Affirmative action programs should be for any group of people that were born into a bad situation. So, to be honest I believe that affirmative action should somehow encompass the student's race (because racism is clearly still alive and well), socioeconomic status, and even gender. At most schools now gender is not a problem, so that is already in place. Since all of these factors of a student give them advantages and disadvantages, AA should just level the playing field for each of them.

I'm giving you the ∆ because of the way you described my point of view. In fact, it helped me to see the error of my original way of thinking, even if I was partly right.

Most top universities are need-blind during the application process and meet most of not all of a students demonstrated need from the FAFSA and other forms. Need-blind means they don't take into account your financial situation at all. Whether you can pay full tuition or can't pay a dime, your financial standing does not play a role in the admissions process.

They don't take into account finances at all when deciding who is accepted and all financial aid is need based. The poor are not harmed and the rich do not benefit.

Why should they? Private universities shouldn't have to give priority to poor students. Top universities are making investments into students when they instruct them, only x amount of kids get into Harvard, MIT, etc. They want to, and should, have the best students they can.

It would be nice if that were true however the universities want to have an ethnically diverse student base so they offer certain ethnicities financial aid in order to get them to join their university.

What universities are you talking about? I'm talking about the Ivy League and universities such as MIT, Georgetown, John Hopkins, etc. They do not offer special financial aid to any one race. If you make below x dollars they pay 100%, if you make below y dollars they pay 80%, etc.

sometimes scholarships are funded by groups or individuals with interests in promoting a specific race/ethnicity, either their own or one they wish to bring attention to; as such the university is bound by these restraints when awarding scholarships.

on the other hand I agree whole-heartedly: when you're rich and powerful enough to fund your own scholarship you'll know which criteria to value and select for, but until then work towards being able to make such an impact on this world

Just because there is a high correlation between race and socio economic status and that it's way easier to quanitfy someone's race than their socioeconomic status doesn't change the fact that using race as a key factor is bullshit and fucks people over.

If we want to live in a world where race isn't used as a variable to make decisions, then we first need to stop using race as a variable to make decisions.